The other problem is reviewers are not forthcoming, they are scared to give bad ratings on any device because the MFR will stop sending them samples. So although if the device is totally a pre-engineering sample or something, they can kind of cuss at it a bit, they still have to walk a thin fine line in their reviews.

I would buy the Panny from somewhere that accepts returns, only you can know if it is the right projector for you, no-one else can know for sure.

Imagine if these projector reviewers were movie critics instead, every movie would win an award, and anyone that didn't would have to be "almost as good", "runner up", "although in most scenes you wouldn't notice", "from seating distance less of an issue". Compare that to the rhetoric of movie reviews, "Wow I just could not sit through this movie any longer", could you imagine a reviewer saying "I can't watch this PJ any longer, sending it back, it's junk"... Although the projectors of today have gotten much closer together for 2d at least, but other than this review here, there really isn't a good source of info as far as someone that points out all the flaws and wins, so I'd go by this review instead of the ones online.

Second that - I think this site and threads like this in particular are ESSENTIAL if you want some objective data. Folks here are so thorough, detail-oriented and just plain picky that if a particular model gets consistent good marks, you can be pretty certain that you're gong to be happy with it (bad individual units excepted of course.)
You know exactly what set ups they are using and have all the technical data you could ever want. There will always be personal tastes at work, but if you know yours you can make a good choice by doing your homework here.

It's my opinion exactly but unfortunately every projector gets looked at very closely but the Panasonic is an exception, so one has no real choice but to go by the reviews. I just wish someone with the will to look at it as closely as on other projectors in this thread would get his/her hand on one of these.

I think if I order it online I have good chances of giving it back. The law is pretty great for that here in Germany. I just don't like the 'order for tryout and send back later'-mentality a lot, since the dealer will then have a 'used' model that he can't sell for the same price. I am feeling good about sending stuff back for defects or if I am surprisingly unhappy with something but in this case it would really be an order to try the device out and so I'll rather wait for more and more detailed reviews. Even the good projector-studios here don't seem to carry the Panasonic. It's really weired.

On a completely different note: A happy new year! (we just entered 2013 over here).

It sounds like you would be a good candidate for the Mits hc8000 (unless it is not bright enough for your setup in 3D).
The Mits has some of the same features as the Panasonic (ability to do 2.35, sadly no FI in 3d though, very sadly), but of course not much lens shift for mounting flexibility like the Panny.

Judging from Zombie's comments on the hc8000, the actual calibrated black levels between the two shouldn't be miles apart (although Panny will likely beat it). I know the Panny has been measured up to 6,000:1 some odd on/off, but realistically it is probably much lower after a calibration and closer to the Mits hc8000 (guessing though, educated guess at least). The Panny's IRIS will almost surely be superior to the Mits, of course if you like IRIS's, then the Panny has more modes to have stronger IRIS effects, whereas sounds like Mits tamed the IRIS down quite a bit so it wasn't as bouncy. The Mits will have cleaner (but not brighter) 3D, and be sharper in 2D. I think the Mits will beat the Panny overall unless you are really hyper-focused on black levels and getting a better IRIS, but if it were me I'd probably go with the Mits (more punchy image).

I'm not that focused on black level but I am very sensitive to RBE, so DLP is kind of a no-go for me, although I don't think that I have seen a 6x color wheel in action yet, but still, I think I will go with an LCD. If it weren't for RBE I wouldn't have to look so desperately for a projector with acceptable cross-talk. I think if the Epson had lower lag I could probably live with the missing 3D-FI but since I am using it quite a bit for gaming the lag is a dealbreaker. I could also live with missing FI for cross-talk-free 3D. I will try to check the Mitsubishi out in person. Thanks for the tip.

It is hard to say if it would work with an RBE sensitive person, I think most people that still see RBE on a 6x color wheel are watching the image too bright.

RBE is caused by four things, primarily in this order:

1) Viewer Sensitivity (genetics, speed of someone's eyes, whatever reason you want to attribute)
2) Brightness of image (very important if you are RBE sensitive to get image under a certain fL, over 18 fL and some even not that sensitive people may start to see RBE)
3) Contrast of image, DLP's with higher on/off contrast (like the hc8000) will exhibit more RBE, because it is easier to notice the rainbows on dark black with brighter whites. The high ANSI contrast in some scenes may also increase RBE
4) Color wheel speed and # of segments (this can help a lot, but won't get rid of it completely for the super-sensitive folks, for some it will). If this were a 3x or 2x wheel, put this as the #1 or # 2 cause.

The usual reason some people will note "this PJ has more RBE with same color wheel", is usually a combo of brightness + contrast. However, as far as an ultimate RBE cause, I'm not sure contrast is really all that far behind brightness, they both are pretty major contributors.

I'm following the comparison threads here since more than a year (thanks Zombie!). I'm a 3D fan (I have more than 50 3D blu rays) and therefore I'm searching for the 'best possible' 3D experience. Just wanted to share a few experiences with you which might be of interest. I own the following projectors and screen:

-Sony HW50
-Benq W7000
-Benq W1070 (since 1 week now)

-92 inch, white 1.1 gain.

I think I'm not wrong saying that most of the readers here agree that the Benq W7000 is a very good 3D projector. I like that it is cross-talk free and very sharp. However for me there is an ambivalence in the motion-handling. Especially for 3D IMAX movies which have mostly slow panning camera movements (and therefore no blurr) the frame interpolation performs really well delivering a very smooth real-life experience. However, when I whatch 'Avatar' for example or 'Hugo' there are quite some scenes with very fast camera movement or high speed object movement before a background (for example the scene where Jake Sully is flying for the first time falling from the cliff or Hugo running through a corridor with fast camera panning) and there the frame interpolation does not perform that well showing some strange artifacts (blocks etc.). And this even happens with FI set to 'low'. Do not get me wrong: This is only happening in a few scenes and some may not even notice this, but I'm very sensitive to this and it really is a big drawback of the W7000 for me. Also sometimes the movements of people just doesn't look 'natural' anymore when FI is enabled. 'Just turn it off then', you might say. Yes, but since the W7000 has 60Hz per eye resulting in a 3:2 judder pull-down this is not an option either for me.

Now, for the HW50: What I like about it is its very bright image (even when I set glasses brightness to max-1, it is clearly brighter than the W7000 behind the glasses). What I like further compared to the W7000 is the motion handling (48Hz, therefore no 3:2 pull-down). However what I don't like is the flicker which tires your eyes with time. But this is only a minor drawback for me. What is still the biggest drawback for me with the HW50's 3D is the ghosting (execpt from that it would be quite perfect). It is still too much for my taste (even with glasses set to max-1, and I don't notice a clear improvement when reducing glass brightness further). There are some movies where this is not critical, but even in 'Avatar' which is not famous to be very ghosting-critical, there are some scences where it is very obvious (often bright lights in the background). I also have the 'Monster Vision' glasses and I experimented with them quite some time. The problem is that when I'm able to reduce ghosting at the top of the image then there is some more ghosting at the bottom. Further I don't like that the monster glasses have a very critical viewing angle. If I turn up my head only a bit, then there is far more ghosting visible.

Now to the Benq W1070: Even though this only costs a fraction of the other two machines it really convinces me in the (my opinion) most important aspect of a high quality 3D experience. Yes, it might be not the brightest (quite comparable to the W7000) and yes, it's placement flexibility is quite bad (not good for HP screens) and yes it is louder than the HW50 (which is VERY quiet), but comparable to the W7000. BUT: the picture has that very nice DLP sharpness (eventhough the optics is not the best), it is as clean from cross-talk than the W7000 and it does exceptionally well in the combination of motion handling/flickering: There is no need for FI because it shutters with a multiple of 24fps, so motion is as natural as with the HW50 but there is no flickering either!! I don't know how this is done (some say that it might shutter with 144Hz triple flash in the Benq W1070 threads in other forums, this is still not clear). However, the 3D is VERY gentle to the eyes with this projector and at the same time very natural (no FI neede). I think this combination is quite unique at this time and I personally think this is my new 3D favorite! It's hard to believe that projector which is that cheap pricewise delivers such a high quality 3D image. Furthermore I was very surprised about the contrast: As there is the Texas Instruments darkchip 3 DLP chip in the Benq W1070 its blacks and contrast is at least in pair if not better than that of the W7000, which has only a darkchip 2.

For me, the W1070 clearly outperforms the W7000 in every aspect that is important for me for a natural, sharp and artifacts free 3D-image. A projector which might have very similar strong points as the W1070 might be the Mits HC8000 (from what I read in this threads, since it is DLP as well and can shutter with a multiple of 24fps which is very imporant in my eyes).

Hi all,
I'm following the comparison threads here since more than a year (thanks Zombie!). I'm a 3D fan (I have more than 50 3D blu rays) and therefore I'm searching for the 'best possible' 3D experience. Just wanted to share a few experiences with you which might be of interest. I own the following projectors and screen:
-Sony HW50
-Benq W7000
-Benq W1070 (since 1 week now)
-92 inch, white 1.1 gain.
I think I'm not wrong saying that most of the readers here agree that the Benq W7000 is a very good 3D projector. I like that it is cross-talk free and very sharp. However for me there is an ambivalence in the motion-handling. Especially for 3D IMAX movies which have mostly slow panning camera movements (and therefore no blurr) the frame interpolation performs really well delivering a very smooth real-life experience. However, when I whatch 'Avatar' for example or 'Hugo' there are quite some scenes with very fast camera movement or high speed object movement before a background (for example the scene where Jake Sully is flying for the first time falling from the cliff or Hugo running through a corridor with fast camera panning) and there the frame interpolation does not perform that well showing some strange artifacts (blocks etc.). And this even happens with FI set to 'low'. Do not get me wrong: This is only happening in a few scenes and some may not even notice this, but I'm very sensitive to this and it really is a big drawback of the W7000 for me. Also sometimes the movements of people just doesn't look 'natural' anymore when FI is enabled. 'Just turn it off then', you might say. Yes, but since the W7000 has 60Hz per eye resulting in a 3:2 judder pull-down this is not an option either for me.
Now, for the HW50: What I like about it is its very bright image (even when I set glasses brightness to max-1, it is clearly brighter than the W7000 behind the glasses). What I like further compared to the W7000 is the motion handling (48Hz, therefore no 3:2 pull-down). However what I don't like is the flicker which tires your eyes with time. But this is only a minor drawback for me. What is still the biggest drawback for me with the HW50's 3D is the ghosting (execpt from that it would be quite perfect). It is still too much for my taste (even with glasses set to max-1, and I don't notice a clear improvement when reducing glass brightness further). There are some movies where this is not critical, but even in 'Avatar' which is not famous to be very ghosting-critical, there are some scences where it is very obvious (often bright lights in the background). I also have the 'Monster Vision' glasses and I experimented with them quite some time. The problem is that when I'm able to reduce ghosting at the top of the image then there is some more ghosting at the bottom. Further I don't like that the monster glasses have a very critical viewing angle. If I turn up my head only a bit, then there is far more ghosting visible.
Now to the Benq W1070: Even though this only costs a fraction of the other two machines it really convinces me in the (my opinion) most important aspect of a high quality 3D experience. Yes, it might be not the brightest (quite comparable to the W7000) and yes, it's placement flexibility is quite bad (not good for HP screens) and yes it is louder than the HW50 (which is VERY quiet), but comparable to the W7000. BUT: the picture has that very nice DLP sharpness (eventhough the optics is not the best), it is as clean from cross-talk than the W7000 and it does exceptionally well in the combination of motion handling/flickering: There is no need for FI because it shutters with a multiple of 24fps, so motion is as natural as with the HW50 but there is no flickering either!! I don't know how this is done (some say that it might shutter with 144Hz triple flash in the Benq W1070 threads in other forums, this is still not clear). However, the 3D is VERY gentle to the eyes with this projector and at the same time very natural (no FI neede). I think this combination is quite unique at this time and I personally think this is my new 3D favorite! It's hard to believe that projector which is that cheap pricewise delivers such a high quality 3D image. Furthermore I was very surprised about the contrast: As there is the Texas Instruments darkchip 3 DLP chip in the Benq W1070 its blacks and contrast is at least in pair if not better than that of the W7000, which has only a darkchip 2.
For me, the W1070 clearly outperforms the W7000 in every aspect that is important for me for a natural, sharp and artifacts free 3D-image. A projector which might have very similar strong points as the W1070 might be the Mits HC8000 (from what I read in this threads, since it is DLP as well and can shutter with a multiple of 24fps which is very imporant in my eyes).
I'm wondering what you guys think about those aspects?

Very interesting, thanks for posting!!! Sounds like a strong candidate for a dedicated 3D/gaming/regular TV viewing projector. Any word on lag times yet?

I'm guessing you don't have any experience with the Epson 5020, right? After reading this, I'd love for you or someone to compare it to the BenQ W1070

I really hope that Benq sends Zombie (Jason A w1070 To test. It seems like a nice 2nd projector for 3D use. Kraine in France tested it and gave it very good reviews. He also did a sharpness test comparing it to much more expensive projectors including JVC's. The results are really interesting, check on the first page on the W1080 in the under $3000 thread for the sharpness tests. I read in one of the reviews that the lag times are really good. This is expected from a DLP projector. The big issues seems to be RBE for some and difficult placement. This projector may be the answer for some who are not looking to spend a great deal and want good 3D with a two projector solution.

"LCD also likely wouldn't give as good a 3D performance as the W1070's DLP engine delivers, at least when it comes to crosstalk. For while cheap LCD projectors really struggle to refresh fast enough to avoid the double ghosting phenomenon, the BenQ W1070 hardly suffers with it at all, helping its 3D images look sharp and detailed, especially as motion is well handled too.

The W1070's improved contrast also aids its 3D images versus the rather disappointing efforts of the W1060 by allowing dark backdrops to look deeper and more detailed. And wrapping up a solid 3D effort is the decent levels of brightness and colour saturation retained even when you've got a pair of (optional extra) 3D glasses on.

Verdict

Once we'd managed to work round its setup limitations and figured out how to avoid a couple of initial picture niggles, we were left with pictures from the BenQ W1070 that comfortably surpassed our expectations, making it just the latest entry on a freakishly long list of 2012 projector bargains. People on the hunt for an exceptionally cheap but still movie-loving projector have never had it so good.

I'm going to try to grab one when I can. I won't be able to maximize my screen gain on my HP screen for 3D, like the W7000 can. Hopefully I can mount it a couple of inches below the top of the screen. Right at the top, I should get 1.5gain, which is good enough and not like the 2+ gain I would get with the W7000. I read that there are limitations when 3D and most 3d glasses. But I'm gonna still give it a shot

The other problem is reviewers are not forthcoming, they are scared to give bad ratings on any device because the MFR will stop sending them samples. So although if the device is totally a pre-engineering sample or something, they can kind of cuss at it a bit, they still have to walk a thin fine line in their reviews.
I would buy the Panny from somewhere that accepts returns, only you can know if it is the right projector for you, no-one else can know for sure.
Imagine if these projector reviewers were movie critics instead, every movie would win an award, and anyone that didn't would have to be "almost as good", "runner up", "although in most scenes you wouldn't notice", "from seating distance less of an issue". Compare that to the rhetoric of movie reviews, "Wow I just could not sit through this movie any longer", could you imagine a reviewer saying "I can't watch this PJ any longer, sending it back, it's junk"... Although the projectors of today have gotten much closer together for 2d at least, but other than this review here, there really isn't a good source of info as far as someone that points out all the flaws and wins, so I'd go by this review instead of the ones online.

I can't speak for anyone else doing reviews but at both of the publications that I've worked for this has NEVER been the case. I've never heard of anyone toning anything down because they were worried about losing the ability to get another review product later down the road. This may be something that goes on in smaller review sites, but at the bigger ones it has never been something I've experienced. I think the main blockade you run into with reviews for projectors is time. We only have a finite amount of time with the PJ before we have to submit the review or get the product back to the manufacturer so they can send it to another reviewer (some companies have a very limited number of review samples). This makes finding every bug or issue difficult and sometimes impossible. Lamp aging issues being one of the biggest. This is why in our reviews of the JVC projectors the first generation got glowing reviews for 3D. It wasn't until later down the line when the lamp started getting dimmer that we saw a lot of issues. Last years projectors showed issues right away so it was reported as such. JVC is also notorious for gamma issues as the lamp ages.

Quote:

Second that - I think this site and threads like this in particular are ESSENTIAL if you want some objective data. Folks here are so thorough, detail-oriented and just plain picky that if a particular model gets consistent good marks, you can be pretty certain that you're gong to be happy with it (bad individual units excepted of course.)

There is some excellent data here in the forums but I also get weary of the bias installed by "owners" of the gear. Too many times do I see issues thrown by the wayside because no one wants to point out the negatives of what they just spent thousands of dollars on. This is understandable and there are a lot of folks here that don't seem to let that get in the way of reporting the negatives along with the positives. But we also see a lot of people here that make mountains out of molehills when it comes to what are truly serious issues and what is just nitpicking. I'm sure there are many here who have lost a lot of enjoyment of their equipment because they read posts that make them feel their equipment is inadequate or that somehow they are truly missing out. I've said it many times before, most of the gear available today is significantly better than what we had just a few short years ago and would satisfy most people; including the most critical viewers. There is always room for improvement but some balance into just how severe some of the issues that seem to get blown out of proportion would go a long way in people's enjoyment.

Your reviews are fine, no problem, I am just speaking in certain cases.

Most of the projector reviews are done by one or a couple of people, and they have a close relationship with a contact at the MFR. I am sure it is different in reviewing more high-volume equipment, whereas it is a more generic relationship. For instance Panasonic at PJC (Panasonic almost always sends him the PJ first before all other reviewers). Part of it is time, but a good majority of it is that when someone likes a projector, a reviewer is very quick to overlook its faults. That is just one example, I can name 5 more examples, but I'd rather not call out names. Art @ PR is giving honest info, which is probably why JVC stopped sending him free review samples, but the problem is he has overlooked stuff accidentally.

new to the form but have been an active reader, I was wondering if any of you know if any Dlp link glasses will do a left eye only and right eye only such as the expand 104 can do with IR it would be for dual view gaming with simulview as right now I am using tape over my true depth glasses for the eye I do not want to see the image from. Or if some one was bother by the eye strain of 3d they could switch the glasses to one eye shutter for both eyes and then watch it in 2d while some one else could watch it in 3d at the same time . I have read on the form that the optima zd 101 can do this but can not confirm it and if the 101 can do it can the zd201 do it as well. As I am using a Benq w 7000 but if I can not find dlp glasses that will do this I might return it and my return dead line is Jan 8/13

I was not originally aware that MOST (or is it all?) new DLP's that have 3D support cannot do 5:5 pulldown (24hz x 5) even when showing the image at 120hz in non-3d mode, Kris or anyone, is this actually correct?

That is weird, so the new DLP's are mostly doing 3:2 instead of 5:5 pulldown in 2D mode, even when they are 120hz?
I heard another reviewer same the same thing about the 3D Optomas. I will test the Benq w7000 when I get it to see if this is true.

I would think at a minimum they should be able to do 48hz (or 96hz) instead of 60hz in 2d, even if they cannot do 5:5, no?

The biggest deciding factor for me on the W1070 would be placement right now. If I can't use it in my room, no point for me to look more into it. It's very new so the throw distance/placement calculators probably don't have it. Does this projector have horizontal and vertical lens shift? Would I be able to fill a 110 inch screen from about 12 feet away?

But we also see a lot of people here that make mountains out of molehills when it comes to what are truly serious issues and what is just nitpicking. I'm sure there are many here who have lost a lot of enjoyment of their equipment because they read posts that make them feel their equipment is inadequate or that somehow they are truly missing out. I've said it many times before, most of the gear available today is significantly better than what we had just a few short years ago and would satisfy most people; including the most critical viewers. There is always room for improvement but some balance into just how severe some of the issues that seem to get blown out of proportion would go a long way in people's enjoyment.

Actually I agree with this. I don't want to get bogged down in a lot of test patterns and meter readings myself, I'm an old film collector and movie lover and I think you have to know your own preferences and limits.
But I DO appreciate the folks here who DO take the time to really run these units through the ringers and report objectively. Especially since it's so difficult for many if not most of us to actually SEE these projectors before we buy them. I'm pretty critical but I know what I like and after a while I think you learn what data and whose opinions to look at and consider.

Thanks to this topic I have an Epson 5020 that I'm really liking (I am having some severe handshake issues though, but I'm hopeful I'll get those solved), and I'm not sure I would have chosen this for 3D otherwise. But the great through-the-glasses photos CLEARLY SHOW the cancellation performance, and you just can't get more objective than that. I like to get to the point where I can just go down to my theater and enjoy films without thinking about the tech end too much as soon as possible. I always come here first though when I have questions about issues with my equipment or want input on new models.

Yah, bunches of us have 3D handshaking issues on different equipment and projectors, it's just luck of the draw in how you mix your equipment, cable lengths, HDMI switches, receivers whatever. I changed my Bluray player out and went from having ZERO issues to having issue, it is annoying and I don't even have long cable runs.

Yah, bunches of us have 3D handshaking issues on different equipment and projectors, it's just luck of the draw in how you mix your equipment, cable lengths, HDMI switches, receivers whatever. I changed my Bluray player out and went from having ZERO issues to having issue, it is annoying and I don't even have long cable runs.

I was having crazy 3D handshaking issues with my Onkyo TX-NR5008 receiver, Oppo BDP-103, JVC RS46, and a pretty long HDMI cable run. I could eventually get the devices to cooperate but it usually took some combination of powering things off and back on -- needless to say it was very frustrating. I've since replaced the long HDMI cable run with this wireless HDMI kit and it's completely cured my handshaking issue.

The biggest deciding factor for me on the W1070 would be placement right now. If I can't use it in my room, no point for me to look more into it. It's very new so the throw distance/placement calculators probably don't have it. Does this projector have horizontal and vertical lens shift? Would I be able to fill a 110 inch screen from about 12 feet away?

Hi all,
I'm following the comparison threads here since more than a year (thanks Zombie!). I'm a 3D fan (I have more than 50 3D blu rays) and therefore I'm searching for the 'best possible' 3D experience. Just wanted to share a few experiences with you which might be of interest. I own the following projectors and screen:
-Sony HW50
-Benq W7000
-Benq W1070 (since 1 week now)
-92 inch, white 1.1 gain.
I think I'm not wrong saying that most of the readers here agree that the Benq W7000 is a very good 3D projector. I like that it is cross-talk free and very sharp. However for me there is an ambivalence in the motion-handling. Especially for 3D IMAX movies which have mostly slow panning camera movements (and therefore no blurr) the frame interpolation performs really well delivering a very smooth real-life experience. However, when I whatch 'Avatar' for example or 'Hugo' there are quite some scenes with very fast camera movement or high speed object movement before a background (for example the scene where Jake Sully is flying for the first time falling from the cliff or Hugo running through a corridor with fast camera panning) and there the frame interpolation does not perform that well showing some strange artifacts (blocks etc.). And this even happens with FI set to 'low'. Do not get me wrong: This is only happening in a few scenes and some may not even notice this, but I'm very sensitive to this and it really is a big drawback of the W7000 for me. Also sometimes the movements of people just doesn't look 'natural' anymore when FI is enabled. 'Just turn it off then', you might say. Yes, but since the W7000 has 60Hz per eye resulting in a 3:2 judder pull-down this is not an option either for me.
Now, for the HW50: What I like about it is its very bright image (even when I set glasses brightness to max-1, it is clearly brighter than the W7000 behind the glasses). What I like further compared to the W7000 is the motion handling (48Hz, therefore no 3:2 pull-down). However what I don't like is the flicker which tires your eyes with time. But this is only a minor drawback for me. What is still the biggest drawback for me with the HW50's 3D is the ghosting (execpt from that it would be quite perfect). It is still too much for my taste (even with glasses set to max-1, and I don't notice a clear improvement when reducing glass brightness further). There are some movies where this is not critical, but even in 'Avatar' which is not famous to be very ghosting-critical, there are some scences where it is very obvious (often bright lights in the background). I also have the 'Monster Vision' glasses and I experimented with them quite some time. The problem is that when I'm able to reduce ghosting at the top of the image then there is some more ghosting at the bottom. Further I don't like that the monster glasses have a very critical viewing angle. If I turn up my head only a bit, then there is far more ghosting visible.
Now to the Benq W1070: Even though this only costs a fraction of the other two machines it really convinces me in the (my opinion) most important aspect of a high quality 3D experience. Yes, it might be not the brightest (quite comparable to the W7000) and yes, it's placement flexibility is quite bad (not good for HP screens) and yes it is louder than the HW50 (which is VERY quiet), but comparable to the W7000. BUT: the picture has that very nice DLP sharpness (eventhough the optics is not the best), it is as clean from cross-talk than the W7000 and it does exceptionally well in the combination of motion handling/flickering: There is no need for FI because it shutters with a multiple of 24fps, so motion is as natural as with the HW50 but there is no flickering either!! I don't know how this is done (some say that it might shutter with 144Hz triple flash in the Benq W1070 threads in other forums, this is still not clear). However, the 3D is VERY gentle to the eyes with this projector and at the same time very natural (no FI neede). I think this combination is quite unique at this time and I personally think this is my new 3D favorite! It's hard to believe that projector which is that cheap pricewise delivers such a high quality 3D image. Furthermore I was very surprised about the contrast: As there is the Texas Instruments darkchip 3 DLP chip in the Benq W1070 its blacks and contrast is at least in pair if not better than that of the W7000, which has only a darkchip 2.
For me, the W1070 clearly outperforms the W7000 in every aspect that is important for me for a natural, sharp and artifacts free 3D-image. A projector which might have very similar strong points as the W1070 might be the Mits HC8000 (from what I read in this threads, since it is DLP as well and can shutter with a multiple of 24fps which is very imporant in my eyes).
I'm wondering what you guys think about those aspects?

Very useful post, thank you. BenQ W1070 and Sony hw50 are on my list (with Panny ae8k).
What can you say regarding 3D depth and pop out with your projectors? Did you compare them on this?

Here's the problem. When someone says a projector has great 3D or poor 3D we need to know what title they watched. A tough title will destroy most non DLP projectors so if someone watched a title like this then they might say that the 3D was useless on that projector. If they watch the "good" titles and little else then they might say that 3D on a particular projector is great. I believe that Trusted Reviews uses the same titles for all 3D testing so there should be some merit in their opinion. You should buy the Panasonic and then send it to Zombie for an evaluation!

Bien vu, c’et du bon sens (thank you that makes good sens ?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by coderguy

The other problem is reviewers are not forthcoming, they are scared to give bad ratings on any device because the MFR will stop sending them samples. So although if the device is totally a pre-engineering sample or something, they can kind of cuss at it a bit, they still have to walk a thin fine line in their reviews.
I would buy the Panny from somewhere that accepts returns, only you can know if it is the right projector for you, no-one else can know for sure.
Imagine if these projector reviewers were movie critics instead, every movie would win an award, and anyone that didn't would have to be "almost as good", "runner up", "although in most scenes you wouldn't notice", "from seating distance less of an issue". Compare that to the rhetoric of movie reviews, "Wow I just could not sit through this movie any longer", could you imagine a reviewer saying "I can't watch this PJ any longer, sending it back, it's junk"... Although the projectors of today have gotten much closer together for 2d at least, but other than this review here, there really isn't a good source of info as far as someone that points out all the flaws and wins, so I'd go by this review instead of the ones online.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S A M 33

Second that - I think this site and threads like this in particular are ESSENTIAL if you want some objective data. Folks here are so thorough, detail-oriented and just plain picky that if a particular model gets consistent good marks, you can be pretty certain that you're gong to be happy with it (bad individual units excepted of course.)
You know exactly what set ups they are using and have all the technical data you could ever want. There will always be personal tastes at work, but if you know yours you can make a good choice by doing your homework here.
S A M 33

I agree, I thing nevertheless that discussion like this thread is very usefull and rich of information

Of course you have to digest a big quantity of information to have an opinion
1- From multiple readings here and there , either good opinions from multiple sources (experts and individuals ) but also bad opinion is a good warning if there is some consensus from multiple sources
2- Training to read between the lines
3- Going to look for yourself if same content , same conditions (too far for me)

I can only afford 1 and 2
Its good to have objective expert sources but what I would like , is to get more involved subjective feeling because objectively a lot of factors can contribute to the outcome.
It woluld also be nice to have in a small parmanent window with simple information about installation conditions (like screen , size distances etc )

The biggest deciding factor for me on the W1070 would be placement right now. If I can't use it in my room, no point for me to look more into it. It's very new so the throw distance/placement calculators probably don't have it. Does this projector have horizontal and vertical lens shift? Would I be able to fill a 110 inch screen from about 12 feet away?

This is the typical mounting setup for the 3D DLP's that don't have a center lens setup like the W7000. I'm curious to hear more info, but the 1070 nor the HC8000 will work with my setup (center mount, high power screen).

Bien vu, c’et du bon sens (thank you that makes good sens ?)
I agree, I thing nevertheless that discussion like this thread is very usefull and rich of information

If you knew what some of us knew about some recent events about how and what reviewers did to come to conclusions, then you might not be that quick to agree. I didn't say it was EVERY reviewer doing it or even most, but yah they are definitely not always forthcoming, sometimes it is an accident and they don't mean to, sometimes because they favor another projector, sometimes because they have a more favorable relationship with one MFR. As unfortunate and jaded as this sounds, it is true, not with all reviewers, but at least a few.

---w1070 vs w7000
I agree the w1070 looks to be a good deal on paper anyhow, hope Zombie can get one for this shootout. If it had a bit more lens shift, I would have bought it instead of the refurb w7000.

If you knew what some of us knew about some recent events about how and what reviewers did to come to conclusions, then you might not be that quick to agree. I didn't say it was EVERY reviewer doing it or even most, but yah they are definitely not always forthcoming, sometimes it is an accident and they don't mean to, sometimes because they favor another projector, sometimes because they have a more favorable relationship with one MFR. As unfortunate and jaded as this sounds, it is true, not with all reviewers, but at least a few.
---w1070 vs w7000
I agree the w1070 looks to be a good deal. If it had a bit more lens shift, I would have bought it instead of the refurb w7000.

Yes of course thats why its wise to read for example conflicting results between different revewers , you can also compensate by reading from different sources (not only expert )and specialy users +++ . avs I think is not banning conflicting opinions from users and this is "rather" a common policy for sites here in france.

Nevertheless , one thing might be sometimes disturbing and thats when you feel you dont have the whole story. but again you can complete with other sources.

I have a question as well, different though.
I was not originally aware that MOST (or is it all?) new DLP's that have 3D support cannot do 5:5 pulldown (24hz x 5) even when showing the image at 120hz in non-3d mode, Kris or anyone, is this actually correct?

That would make sense, don't you agree? Divide 120 by 2 and you get 60 Hz for each eye. There's 3:2 pulldown for you right there. Unless projector can output 96 Hz or 144 Hz in 3D there will be 3:2 pulldown on 24 Hz content.

Thanks to this topic I have an Epson 5020 that I'm really liking (I am having some severe handshake issues though, but I'm hopeful I'll get those solved), and I'm not sure I would have chosen this for 3D otherwise. But the great through-the-glasses photos CLEARLY SHOW the cancellation performance, and you just can't get more objective than that. I like to get to the point where I can just go down to my theater and enjoy films without thinking about the tech end too much as soon as possible. I always come here first though when I have questions about issues with my equipment or want input on new models.
S A M 33

What kind of issues are you having with the RF glasses? I've had very good luck so far with the sync'ing. Today we had visitors with young kids watching TinkerBell 3D and the Epson glasses were perfect since they were moving around.

later tonight I should have some time for the 5020 / W7000 comparisons.

What kind of issues are you having with the RF glasses? I've had very good luck so far with the sync'ing. Today we had visitors with young kids watching TinkerBell 3D and the Epson glasses were perfect since they were moving around.
later tonight I should have some time for the 5020 / W7000 comparisons.

That would make sense, don't you agree? Divide 120 by 2 and you get 60 Hz for each eye. There's 3:2 pulldown for you right there. Unless projector can output 96 Hz or 144 Hz in 3D there will be 3:2 pulldown on 24 Hz content.

I am talking about in 2D, not in 3D. Sorry if I was unclear, but I did say "non-3d" modes. There are many reviewers that claim many of these projectors can no longer do 24p even in 2D mode without 3:2, I guess it doesn't really matter because I didn't buy the Benq for 2D.

I still don't understand, because "normal" projectors these days are doing 5:5 pulldown when FI is off watching and when watching 24p content.
We are repeating the 24hz frame WHEN FI is not on, this is different than FI which is inserting algorithmically "corrected" insertion frames between a given frame.